I would like to know, about the T-95, where are they going to fit the rounds and how many. Unless the size of the tank increases or the crew gets even smaller, are we talking about less than 10 rounds?

Well, let's not exaggerate. What I have read lists 34-36 rounds as planned storage for the 152mm armed tanks (T-95, Molot etc.), which seems reasonable.
Chances are that we will never know, the latest word is that the ax has fallen on the T-95.

Quote:

I personally think this is going to continue to be myth. They keep having to come up with new numbers as every tank that does come out is basically just a T-72 derivative.

Thing is, nobody is interested im something better than that.
The export customers have lined up in droves to buy it because it provides a very cost effective follow on to the T-72/T-55 and 60's western tanks which make up their tank fleets. Since most of them already operates T-72M there is also a bit of commonality. Anybody with the cash and desire for something better generally either buys western or make their own. By comparison the "better" T-80s attracted very limited interest, the only big sale was ukrainan T-84s to Pakistan and even then only because they could not obtain T-90 in first place.
As for Russia itself T-90s and modernized T-72s are sufficient against what the georgians or chinese can deploy.
T-95 would be really needed only against western MBTs but, even if we assume a confrontation (say, something along the lines of Georgia) with the West that does not end with Topol and Trident exchanges, contesting the air will have the priority and tank on tank egagements may not even take place.

Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

Well, it is a bit of a risk. Should customers start to demand in something radically better than T-90 the russian will not have anything ready in the pipeline. To be sure, this isn't going to happen tomorrow but development of a new MBT isn't instantaneous either.
I suppose that they came to the conclusion that the T-90 market niche and lack of interest in high end russian designs will last long enough to enable them to cook something new at leisurely pace. Which isn't unreasonable but they are taking a calculated risk, even if a limited one.
One has also to wonder how far advanced T-95 development was, it is possible that it was caught in the collapse halfway and never fully finished. I would not want to be foreign customer to sign for a delivery contract only to find out I have to shell out more and more money and wait for years for it to be ironed out. T-90 at least is tried and true.

Never said they weren't or even that it wasn't prudent on the part of the Russians (and everyone else still churning out T-72 derivatives).

It was a comment on the need for Western defense watchers to, in my opinion, almost entirely fabricate these reports of super-gun tanks in order to have some flashy to talk about. Jane's for instance has touted out various rumors of this supposed 140mm-152mm gunned tank for some time now, despite the products generally being, as I noted, just standard gunned T-72 derivatives. They just upped the number when the T-90 came out and it wasn't one of these super-gun tanks. I believe the T-90 was at one point speculated to have been a reduced crew vehicle of some sort as well, following the US experiments of the late 1980s with tanks with full size guns in remote turrets.

This is pretty much the same story with Chinese tank related rumors. In 2003, Jane's suggested that the Chinese had an 152mm armed tank in the works. Since then, both the Type 98 and Type 99 have gone into series production and neither turned out to be armed with an 152mm gun.

These rumors have been circulating for over a decade, with the suggestion in the Russian case that the development had been going on for some 25-30 years in total. I'm just really skeptical any time these things are brought up for these reasons.

Well, it is a bit of a risk. Should customers start to demand in something radically better than T-90 the russian will not have anything ready in the pipeline. To be sure, this isn't going to happen tomorrow but development of a new MBT isn't instantaneous either.
I suppose that they came to the conclusion that the T-90 market niche and lack of interest in high end russian designs will last long enough to enable them to cook something new at leisurely pace. Which isn't unreasonable but they are taking a calculated risk, even if a limited one.
One has also to wonder how far advanced T-95 development was, it is possible that it was caught in the collapse halfway and never fully finished. I would not want to be foreign customer to sign for a delivery contract only to find out I have to shell out more and more money and wait for years for it to be ironed out. T-90 at least is tried and true.

Next up will be the Turkish M60T which has been updated to the SEBRA MKII or MIII standard. In SP we have the M60A3 IMI ST which I understand is upgraded to the MKI standard. Others conflict on the M60T if it's the A1 or A3 that's been updated. Some Israeli papers report the A1 was updated. Outward difference between A3 SEBRA MKI and A1 (MOST POINT TO THIS.)
M60T is the MG cupola was kept. Just emailed IMI for clarification on the M60T. Below is a picture of the M60T. Again I'm awaiting clarification from IMI.
Pic:
Regards,
Pat

Where's IMP? John thought you might find (and others of course!) this interesting as I recall you did some reporting on India's
T-90's. Doing a source check I was wondering what news there was on India's "competition" between the ARJUN and their T-90's. Based on this article the ARJUN did better then expected, as predicted by the evaluation conducted on the ARJUN by the as yet unnamed foreign major tank manufacturer. This just could really shake things up for India's Army not to mention their POSSIBLE export potential. Will follow this, see original post #9 (?)on pg. 1. Here's the update:http://www.army-technology.com/news/news82347.html
Also no reply from IMI on the email I sent about the Turkish M60T. Might have to go with what I got and all of you be the judge.
Regards,
Pat

Forgot to mention if we're to see the T-95 look to the IDELF 2010Military Expo on 30 June - 04 July in Zhukovsky, Russia. MANY sources point to a Military Expo early this summer and this is the most likely one currently scheduled.
Regards,
Pat